Crayton v. Hedgpeth et al

Filing 276

ORDER signed by District Judge William Haskell Alsup on 12/24/2013 re 275 MOTION filed by Timothy Crayton. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8

TIMOTHY CRAYTON,
Plaintiff,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

v.

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED
OBJECTION AND MOTION RE THE
DECEMBER 13 STIPULATION

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
A. HEDGEPETH, et al.,
Defendants.
/

13
14

No. C 08-00621 WHA (NJV) (PR)

On December 23, plaintiff Timothy Crayton filed a “verified objection and motion to

15

nullify, void, and strike the purported 12/13/13 stipulation” (Dkt. No. 275). Mr. Crayton appears

16

to believe that the December 13 stipulation (Dkt. No. 265) is “an agreement that allows defense

17

counsel to re-open dispositive motion proceedings and allow . . . ‘any procedural motion that

18

Defendant believes is appropriate based on the exhaustion issue . . . .’” The verified objection

19

and motion requests a hearing “on the issue of pro bono representation” and a stay of

20

proceedings. The Court requests that appointed counsel for plaintiff please confer promptly with

21

Mr. Crayton regarding this verified objection and motion. On December 13, defendants filed a

22

motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, noticed for January 16 (Dkt.

23

No. 268). Plaintiff can certainly file an opposition should he so choose. The Court would

24

appreciate it if plaintiff’s counsel would please file a response by JANUARY 6 AT NOON

25

regarding whether Mr. Crayton intends to withdraw this verified objection and motion, or what

26

relief he requests to be heard on.

27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 24, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE